get_appointment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The '[tier: readonly-owner]' notation hints at read-only access and ownership scoping, which is useful. However, the description does not disclose what the response contains, potential error conditions, or behavior if the appointment doesn't exist, beyond what the endpoint mapping implies.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single efficient sentence that states purpose, mapping, and access tier. Concise and front-loaded with no wasted words. It could arguably be a 5, but the tier annotation appended in brackets is slightly cryptic without elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple two-parameter fetch tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description provides the endpoint mapping and tier, which is decent context, but it doesn't mention response shape, error handling, or relationship to related tools like list_job_appointments. For a simple single-resource GET, it's adequate but leaves questions unanswered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there are only 2 plain string parameters (job_id, appointment_id) with no descriptions in the schema. The description names both IDs implicitly through the endpoint path, which adds modest value, but it doesn't clarify their format, relationship, or required scope beyond what the endpoint mapping shows. With 0 params, baseline would be 4, but the endpoint mapping provides some of that semantics already.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool fetches details for a single appointment, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details for a single appointment'). It maps to a clear REST endpoint and includes a tier notation ('[tier: readonly-owner]'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from its sibling 'list_job_appointments' beyond the implied singular vs. plural distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context (fetching a single appointment via job_id and appointment_id) but does not explicitly state when to use this versus list_job_appointments or other siblings. The 'readonly-owner' tier hint provides some permission context, but there is no when/when-not guidance or naming of alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.